Jump to content

Bryan and An

Members
  • Posts

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • City
    Granite City
  • State
    Illinois

Immigration Info

  • Immigration Status
    Naturalization (approved)
  • Place benefits filed at
    Chicago Lockbox
  • Local Office
    Saint Louis MO
  • Country
    Vietnam

Bryan and An's Achievements

Recent Profile Visitors

3,139 profile views
  1. But in researching it, Illinois also has a version called "Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults" that applies to those 42-64. However, it was paused on July 1 as they wait and see if they have enough funds for the rest of the year, but since my in-laws applied a week prior to July 1 (thankfully!), they should be in. Hopefully! Already a little frustrated because after completing the online application, it said "watch your (physical) mail for a list of anything you may need to submit," and the first thing we received after a week was a letter saying they were denied provisional approval due to "insufficient documentation provided" but are still being considered for actual approval.
  2. So I'm going through this exact process right now. Thanks for the extremely helpful information. However, I do have a question/concern. When I get to the question about "Were you found ineligible for Medicaid..." Well, actually there are two questions. The first one is something like "Were you found ineligible for Medicaid since March 2023" (no mention of immigration status). It specifically says not to say "no" unless you had been denied coverage, and if you do click "yes," it asks for the date of your denial letter. If you say "no," it then asks, "Were you found ineligible for Medicaid based on your immigration status since 2018?" If you say "yes," it asks, "Have you had your current immigration status since 2018?" Then when you say "no," it asks, "Have you had a change in your immigration status since you were found not eligible for Medicaid?" Is the proper method to say "yes" to being found ineligible due to immigration status since 2018, "no" to having your current immigration status since 2018," then "yes" to having a change in your immigration status since you were found not eligible for Medicaid, despite not actually being denied or found ineligible? Just wanted to make sure because these questions sound a little more specific/detailed than what was posted in the OP. Thanks for any insight! (This is Illinois, if that helps at all.)
  3. Thanks for the response! Yes, I know that scanned and photocopied are both copies. My concern was that in some places it says to bring official/original/certified versions of all documents, so I didn’t know if she needed to bring the official one my wife received at her naturalization ceremony.
  4. My wife has petitioned her mother to come here on an IR-5 visa. She just received an interview date in early February at the consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. We are trying to make sure she has all of the documents she needs at the interview. We are confused, though, about whether she needs to bring proof of my wife’s (her daughter) citizenship status - i.e., naturalization certificate or US passport. The confusion comes from reading 3 different things in 3 different (official) places. One says to bring ORIGINALS (and copies) of ALL documents uploaded to CEAC (which would include her naturalization certificate). Another official source says to bring proof of status such as “a COPY of naturalization certificate or US passport.” And the checklist that my wife’s mother has to print and bring to the interview doesn’t mention bringing proof of status at all! Obviously, we will have her bring a copy of my wife’s naturalization certificate and passport. But I’m just wondering if we need to risk mailing her official certificate to Vietnam, given how unreliable and slow mail service can be (in our past experience). Anyone know for sure if the petitioner’s official (original) Certificate of Naturalization is needed at the IR-5 interview in Ho Chi Minh City? Thanks in advance for any help!
  5. I don't have an answer for you, but was just searching for the same thing. It now says reviewing cases from 4/21, and we had everything submitted on 4/19. Has yours been updated or have you heard anything yet?
  6. Thank you. I have messaged an immigration law firm with an office in Saigon and will hopefully have a conversation with them later today.
  7. Good points, and thanks for looking up the articles. This incident occurred in 2019, so probably right around the time of the increased fines, as you mentioned. Here's my understanding of what happened from that time - keep in mind it's basically thirdhand information, from my wife, who got it from her mother, who pieced it together from talking to the ship's owner, the owner's wife, and the limited opportunities she had to talk to her husband (my FIL) while he was detained, imprisoned, or whatever. My understanding of why they were held so long instead of just paying the fine is that the ship's owner didn't want to pay a dime, and none of the fishermen had any money. The 2019 article you linked says the minimum fine per crewman would have been RM 100,000, which according to Google is almost $28,000. This was probably 2 years' salary for my FIL and the other crewmen, who wouldn't have had any money at all, as they weren't paid until after a fishing trip was completed, and they had already been on the waters 8 or 9 months at the time of the arrests. There were a few court proceedings during those 7 months, in which the ship owner had a Malay-speaking lawyer representing all of the fishermen (but as I was led to understand, probably more concerned with representing his own interests - not surprising, I suppose). None of the crew members had a clue what was said during any of the proceedings either by the court or by the attorney supposedly representing them, but simultaneously representing the ship's owner. It was also my understanding that the owner's main concern, aside from not having to pay any money (or pay as little as possible) was getting his seized ships back (there were 2 ships seized together with a total of 30ish crewmen, I believe). In the end, getting the men released was conditioned upon his own (the owner's) admission of fault or guilt and then paying the hefty fine. And in the end, I believe that is what happened - I'm not sure if it was a negotiation of sorts, or haggling, for 7 months, but this was my perception. I don't know much about the court system in Malaysia, or how on the up-and-up they are, but it didn't seem that strange to me that the men would be held for 7 months without an actual conviction when even in the USA, you can look at the famous case of Kalief Browder, who was imprisoned for years in one of the toughest prisons in New York without a trial before eventually killing himself. Also, the owner of the ships never set foot in Malaysia during these proceedings, so there was never any risk of him himself being detained in the matter. Again, that's all my understanding from three years ago, and maybe not all that important other than being as honest and detailed as we can on the form and hoping for the best. Regardless of what happens, I'm just glad we've been able to support my wife's family in her dad's retirement, as it was a tough, dangerous job. Just last year, her cousin was killed by pirates and his body just dumped in the ocean when the ship he was fishing on was hijacked and the remaining crew members held for ransom. Less than a year before her dad's arrest, another cousin died on a fishing ship under hazy circumstances, his body never recovered. Rough job, commercial fishing in Vietnam.
  8. Not trying to downplay it. I mistyped and it was 7 months, not 9; still a long time. My main confusion was in the fact that he was never convicted, and in some areas the instructions seem to specify a conviction while other times states merely arrested. While not trying to hide anything, I’m also a believer in only giving what is asked for. I just wasn’t sure where being arrested but then released with charges dropped (which my wife called home earlier to confirm was what happened) fell on the spectrum. Thanks for the feedback and help.
  9. Thanks - I agree. We're going to answer "yes" and explain exactly what happened and assume they'll let us know if he needs any documentation. Wouldn't need a "Certificate of Good Conduct" I presume since it says that's only available to people who were in Malaysia 12 months or more. Good advice, and thank you. Will just err on the side of being as forthcoming as possible on the DS-260 and interview.
  10. Well, that exact point (location of the arrest) was what was in dispute the whole time, but yes it was the reason for his arrest.
  11. Hence my confusion. From your first quoted part: “regardless of how long you lived in that city or country…” He NEVER set foot in Malaysia, let alone lived there, other than being taken from the police boat to the jail and then later released. I guess being in jail may technically count as living somewhere, but not in the common parlance, in my opinion. And in the second quoted part, it says “if you were convicted of a crime…” He never was convicted. But in another place it just says “arrested.” Thanks to those who took the time to answer politely. After doing all of my wife’s K1 visa, AOS, ROC, and naturalization paperwork singlehandedly, there have certainly been plenty of times that USCIS instructions have been unclear or contradictory. Thankfully, I’ve gotten many good answers here on many different things. What rubs me the wrong way is getting a response commenting on how well my wife “clearly does or doesn’t understand” something in her non-native language. My 6th grade students have learned how to speak to each other in a more helpful and respectful fashion than that. Shame.
×
×
  • Create New...